Jump to content

The Flying Circus Features & Bugs tracker


SCG_Faerber
 Share

Recommended Posts

SCG_Faerber

The flying circus roadmap is an initiative by the Flying Circus community to organize and streamline the bugs reported and overall misunderstandings about the game and present them to the developers and players alike for a better comprehension of the current status of the product, while avoiding toxic undertones and hostility in the Flying Circus forums. This is NOT a list of demands nor a guide for future development (the name "roadmap" is for the lack of a better term). It is simply an organized list that illustrate the major issues the player base has talked about, and highlights the effort of the developers who work day and night to provide us with, and improve, this game which is, already, the best World War I sim in the market. 


The list below might contain items that are of insufficient data to elicit a change and when that is the case I will be updating it with the devs response of why it is the way it is/why it is correct. This list will be everchanging and I hope that it can help both players and devs to understand what is currently going on with the game.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT A "POST YOUR COMPLAINTS" THREAD, KEEP THEM ELSEWHERE.
 

Spoiler

* - marks items that are of significant priority by the community

Some items have no data/references or might be considered INVALID by the developers and as such are prone to be DELETED.
Some items marked as "not acknowledged" might have been indeed acknowledged, in which case I will promptly edit the thread.


Not Acknowledged = The item has not been talked about by the Dev Team.
Acknowledged = has been talked about by the Dev Team.
Fixed = has been fixed by the Dev Team.
Confirmed = has been acknowledged and confirmed to be worked on by the Dev Team.

Any suggestions or comments can also be made via PM to me.



image.thumb.png.ea5e07b448fd90945777e696fcce70dd.png
 

Flight Model:

⦁    Nieuport 28 FM (Not acknowledged)                                                                                                                                          

Lacking rotary engine quirks, roll authority shouldn't be possible with it's aileron design, too sluggish at it's controls and a too high stall speed. It's currently virtually unused in multiplayer.
[ref.: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12259-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?do=findComment&comment=1085189]


⦁    SPAD VII 150/180hp FM * (Not acknowledged)                                                                                                                                  
Huge and weird flutter at medium/high speeds and while maneuvering (might be something to do with it's really poor energy retention)
[ref.: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12259-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?do=findComment&comment=1118593 ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh-bjJoR4CU]


    SPAD VII 180hp specific FM (Not acknowledged)                                                                                                    
Too little energy retention.

⦁    Fokker Dr.I FM (Not acknowledged)                                                                                                                            
"The FC dr1 should be much more docile near stall, and i think that is one of the bigger problems with it.  People would fight it a lot slower if it handled like the real bird."                        
[ref.: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/38067-fokker-dri-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=953045 by Chill31, real Fokker Dr.I pilot] 


⦁    Pfalz D.XII FM (Not acknowledged)                                                                                                                              
The aircraft will not dive past a certain speed, pulling up regardless of stick input.

    Pfalz D.IIIa FM (Not acknowledged)                                                                                                                              

Too high G tolerance, able to withstand up to 11Gs (on a high speed dive pull).


Damage Model:

⦁    Control Cables Hitbox (Fixed in 4.604)                                                                                                                                    
Control were snapping too often.                                                           

⦁    Actual Control Cables (Fixed in 4.604 & upcoming)                                                                                                    
Cut cables will now allow for the affected control surface to dangle instead of the more "modern" jamming. (not yet implemented on all aircraft)     

⦁    Albatross D.Va Engine Overheating (Fixed)

⦁    Wings shred too easily * (Acknowledged)                                                                                                                                                   
Some aircraft wings will be extremely fragile after recieving the least amount of damage or are just plainly too fragile. (All aircraft suffer with this issue, with the exception of the Fokker DVII, Dr.I, Pfalz D.IIIa and both Bristols [Sopwith Dolphin and Pfalz D.XII are the most affected]). 
[ref.: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57896-jasons-briefing-room-and-officers-club/?do=findComment&comment=1122442 ; "So, I will say this, the adjusted .50s will be about a week from now, control surfaces jamming fix will be probably a month from now and another general WWI wing failures and general damage review and possible revision will be several months from now."].


⦁    Aircraft shudder/shaking after hits (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                                            
Aircraft shuddering exaggeratedly after few rounds, affecting it's handling way too much after such a low amount of damage. The shaking does not simulate the lesser lift of when the fabric is torn. This should be modeled after WW2. Airframe could vibrate but only if engine is damaged or become loose on it's mounting.  (needs more data).

⦁    Fokker D.VII and D.VIIF wing durability (Fixed in 4.605)

The excessive wing frame resistance to enemy fire of Fokker D.VII and Fokker D.VIIF was corrected. Nevertheless, its construction means that these aircraft are still the most durable fighters of their time.

Aircraft Modelling: 

    Halberstadt CL.2 Rear Gun Angle (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                                     
Too small and too low.

⦁    SE5a Aldis Mount (Acknowledged)                                                                                                                                                     
Mount angle and angle of fire are incorrect.

⦁    Sopwith Dolphin Aldis Mount (Acknowledged)                                                                                                                                 
Mount position is not correct for front line units.

    Bristol Altimeter * (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                                                              
Bristol Altimeter does not show the correct altitude and the margin of error magnifies the higher you go.

⦁    SPAD XIII C.1 Engine (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                                                           
The SPAD in-game uses a HS8ba (200hp) while it should be a HS8BEc (220hp).
[ref.: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/74661-data-showing-incorrect-engine-used-in-the-spad-xiii-its-impact-on-performance-proposed-corrections/]


⦁    Albatross D.Va 200hp Engine (Acknowledged)                                                                                                  
Albatross lacks the Mercedes D.IIIaü (200hp) that makes it viable and authentic in mid-late 1918 scenarios. 
[ref.: https://stormbirds.blog/2021/04/07/jason-williams-answers-il-2-questions-in-a-mini-qa-more-to-come/]


⦁    D.IIIaü Engine available for other aircraft  (Confirmed)                                                                                                      
Fokker D.VII and Pfalz. DXII should both have it available as well as the Albatross.
[ref.: https://stormbirds.blog/2021/04/07/jason-williams-answers-il-2-questions-in-a-mini-qa-more-to-come/]


⦁    Pfalz D.XII variant and engine (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                       
The in-game engine (BMWIIIa) for the Pfalz is actually the one fitted in the rare Pfalz D.XII "f" variant. The "standard" Pfalz D.XII was fitted with either the Mercedes D.IIIa or D.IIIaü. 
[ref.: "Pfalz D.XIIf: The over compressed BMW IIIa engine would have provided improved performance in the D.XIIf variant. Records show that Pfalz received 84 such engines between July and October 1918, but there is no photographic evidence of any production D.XII equipped with the BMW IIIa"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfalz_D.XII#Pfalz_D.XIIf]

    Parachutes as field mod (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                      
Parachutes should be an optional field mod for the air forces that used them.

    Parachutes N% fail chance (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                      
The First World War parachutes were in their infancy so having them being extremely reliable is both unfair and immersion breaking. 
[ref.:https://climbinghigher.wixsite.com/climbinghigher/post/do-or-die-no-parachute-high-in-the-sky]


Sound:

    Conflict Accurate "hit sounds" (Fixed)                                                                    
WW2 hit effects removed and replaced by WW1 hit effects.


    Nieuport 28 Engine Noise (Not Acknowledged)                                                                                                        
N28 engine noise is currently based on throttle position and not on actual RPMs. Try adjusting the mixture to cause large RPM changes on the N28 and on other rotary planes like the Camel or Dr1 and you'll notice the engine noise on everything but the N28 responds to the actual RPM. 


QoL/Flavor:

    Tactical codes for FC Vol.2 aircraft (Fixed)                                                                    
All present and future FC Vol.2 aircraft will come with Tactical Codes.


    DVD for FC Vol.2 aircraft (Fixed)                                                                                                    

All present and future FC Vol.2 aircraft will come with Dynamic Visual Damage.

⦁    Tactical codes for FC Vol.1 aircraft (Confirmed)                                                                                  
It has been said that 1C plans to retroactively fit all previously released aircraft with Tactical Codes.                         


    DVD for FC Vol.1 aircraft (Confirmed)                                                                                  
It has been said that 1C plans to retroactively fit all previously released aircraft with Dynamic Visual Damage.


⦁    TacView Bug (Fixed)                                                                                                                               
A bug that reversed east-west coordinates for FC aircraft in TacView. 


    Gas Attacks in No Man's Land (Not Acknowledged)
[ref.: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/74788-gas-attacks-to-mission-editor/ ]


Thanks to @Jason_Williams ; @-DED-Rapidus ; @Chill31 ; @gascan ; @1PL-Husar-1Esk ; @J2_Bidu ; @J2_Seya ; @J5_Baeumer ; @JG1_Hotlead_J10 ; @US213_Biddle ; @US213_Talbot ; @US28_Baer ; @US93_Larner ; @US93_Wright ; @ZaknafeinTV ; the Flying Circus dev team ; whole Flying Circus Flugpark server/Discord team and others.
 

Edited by SCG_Faerber
Added acknowledged/confirmed status to deserving items.
  • Like 16
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BaronVonMyakin

Good job!

It but seems to me that I miss a few words about the „concrete“ DM of Fokker D.VII. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ST_Catchov

You should include the Se5a with the Spad 7's poor energy retention/bleeding revs issues. I think the devs flight theory calculations believe it's a thin wing thing. Others believe it's the wrong prop pitch. Whatever it is, it doesn't fit with fabled BnZ'rs unable to do more than a couple of passes before the revs die. The D7 "tank" is another one already mentioned.

 

Well done though. Hopefully the devs have more free time to get to these things after Normandy is released/bugs squashed.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner
3 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I think the devs flight theory calculations believe it's a thin wing thing.


Surely not - the D.XII holds its energy pretty nicely, as does the S.XIII...not really sure what happened to the S.E. / S.VII 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Faerber
18 hours ago, BaronVonMyakin said:

It but seems to me that I miss a few words about the „concrete“ DM of Fokker D.VII. 

 

13 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

The D7 "tank" is another one already mentioned.


Although debatable, there is enough evidence to support that the Fokkers D.VII were indeed tough birds. The issue is not that the D.VII is strong but that most other aircraft are too fragile.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Rummell

Brilliant, thank you! If you’ve not watched Greg’s video on the Dviif engine, do give it 10m. Excellent explanation of the over compression and special throttle. He also gives interesting performance data on the 200hp Spad (current FC) vs the 220hp. The 220hp keeps the power advantage for an additional 3000 feet, and the gap between the two engines is much lower beyond that point. Gives some idea to the balancing impact of having both engines available. 

 

E2B9D143-0A3E-489B-B580-D5CDA9A99A0D.jpeg

F6668DD2-0E7B-4CE1-8E3E-4512A7DFB660.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX
On 9/30/2021 at 1:21 AM, US93_Rummell said:

If you’ve not watched Greg’s video on the Dviif engine, do give it 10m. Excellent explanation of the over compression and special throttle.

Sigh. Gerg is somewhere between misleading and wrong. It is obvious that he didn't fully understand the altitude throttle and why it had to be a different lever.

 

TL;DR: Having an automated mixture requires you to differenciate between different external conditions at the same power setting. The altitude throttle allows for that. You should think of it rather as an "MW50 system" than a "turbo".

 

Just because it's you:

  1. The engine is higher compressed than usual. But not much. Higher compression means more torque and in process it gives you more power. Greg is right about that.
  2. The engine is NOT knock-limited (EDIT: It does knock, but  only some 15%+ above rated power), even though this forum mirage will be forever in company with the .50 cal BMG that "can flip Tiger Tanks". The engine is set for a power output that exceeds structural strenght. It will not knock. It will just fall apart at this regime. In these engines you are nowhere near a knock unless you are cooking the engine.
  3. Now, why not make a single lever, but maybe a detent or marking "from where be bad", but actually make a second lever? Answer: Fuel mixture ratio. You have to lean the mixture at altitude, but going in high compression and high rpm complicates things. The altitude throttle hence has its own mixture regulator maintaining a suitable mix at altitude. This has to be, because when the throttle is opened to said 24'' manifold at sea level, the restricted carburator opening produces a different airspeed in the manifold than a fully opened manifold at 6000 ft., where in total the same air mass is passing through. The conditions in the carburator at 24'' at sea lavel are not the same as with 24'' at 6000 ft. Some (Wiki among them) even state that the altitude throttle even uses a different fuel that it adds to the normal, very fast burning fuel of the time, making it in fact a bi-fuel solution, the MW50 of its day. If you go up with compression, a fast burning fuel is not that desireable, but in a Clerget it is, becuause it burns about everything until the gases are discharged. Rotary engines have a very short burn cycle. You use slow burning fuels in such engines, you risk discharging gases when they are still burning. This also happens when you are leaning your Cessna or Cirrus while going high rpm. It starts to make awful sounds even though your manifold pressure is all fine and low. But you are actively destroying your engine at that point despite a modest net power output.
  4. The upside of that system is that, when you know business being so high up that the engine never gets anywhere near structural strenght, you can keep weight down by not adding enough metal for the engine to take 235 hp without falling apart. The main difference to the Hisso is, that that one can take 235 hp and down low you have that power on the deck while Hans will be racing on prayers. But if that price to pay gives you an engine that you have as opposed to one you don't have, then it is a good idea. The Hisso doesn't have an altitude throttle, but it has the mixture lever that you don't have in the D.VII et.al.

 

I'm sorry, the often quoted Greg has obviously really little idea about this.

 

 

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Rummell
8 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Sigh. Gerg is somewhere between misleading and wrong. It is obvious that he didn't fully understand the altitude throttle and why it had to be a different lever.

 

TL;DR: Having an automated mixture requires you to differenciate between different external conditions at the same power setting. The altitude throttle allows for that. You should think of it rather as an "MW50 system" than a "turbo".

 

Just because it's you:

  1. The engine is higher compressed than usual. But not much. Higher compression means more torque and in process it gives you more power. Greg is right about that.
  2. The engine is NOT knock-limited, even though this forum mirage will be forever in company with the .50 cal BMG that "can flip Tiger Tanks". The engine is set for a power output that exceeds structural strenght. It will not knock. It will just fall apart at this regime. In these engines you are nowhere near a knock unless you are cooking the engine.
  3. Now, why not make a single lever, but maybe a detent or marking "from where be bad", but actually make a second lever? Answer: Fuel mixture ratio. You have to lean the mixture at altitude, but going in high compression and high rpm complicates things. The altitude throttle hence has its own mixture regulator maintaining a suitable mix at altitude. This has to be, because when the throttle is opened to said 24'' manifold at sea level, the restricted carburator opening produces a different airspeed in the manifold than a fully opened manifold at 6000 ft., where in total the same air mass is passing through. The conditions in the carburator at 24'' at sea lavel are not the same as with 24'' at 6000 ft. Some (Wiki among them) even state that the altitude throttle even uses a different fuel that it adds to the normal, very fast burning fuel of the time, making it in fact a bi-fuel solution, the MW50 of its day. If you go up with compression, a fast burning fuel is not that desireable, but in a Clerget it is, becuause it burns about everything until the gases are discharged. Rotary engines have a very short burn cycle. You use slow burning fuels in such engines, you risk discharging gases when they are still burning. This also happens when you are leaning your Cessna or Cirrus while going high rpm. It starts to make awful sounds even though your manifold pressure is all fine and low. But you are actively destroying your engine at that point despite a modest net power output.
  4. The upside of that system is that, when you know business being so high up that the engine never gets anywhere near structural strenght, you can keep weight down by not adding enough metal for the engine to take 235 hp without falling apart. The main difference to the Hisso is, that that one can take 235 hp and down low you have that power on the deck while Hans will be racing on prayers. But if that price to pay gives you an engine that you have as opposed to one you don't have, then it is a good idea. The Hisso doesn't have an altitude throttle, but it has the mixture lever that you don't have in the D.VII et.al.

 

I'm sorry, the often quoted Greg has obviously really little idea about this.

 

 

Thanks, old pal :-). I don’t want to pollute this thread too much nor criticise Greg; I also read elsewhere about the mixture adjustment and introduction of a second fuel (must be some super nerdy books out there on the BMW). The point was more about the performance offered by the HS220hp and potential balancing for late war scenarios. You’d hope to see the same positive benefit of the AU engine for Dvas etc. Hopefully the performance charts he quote aren’t wrong!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX
2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Thanks, old pal :-). I don’t want to pollute this thread too much nor criticise Greg; I also read elsewhere about the mixture adjustment and introduction of a second fuel (must be some super nerdy books out there on the BMW). The point was more about the performance offered by the HS220hp and potential balancing for late war scenarios. You’d hope to see the same positive benefit of the AU engine for Dvas etc. Hopefully the performance charts he quote aren’t wrong!

The performance charts are reasonable and do reflect some common practise of how power was assessed in these engines 100 years ago. I certainly don't have any issue with that. It is my personal opinion and experience that with vintage engines, if you have only +- 10% variation in your vehicle park, then you have awesome mechanics. Hence, I generally expect real world performances to differ and one should be emotionally prepared for a lot of tears.

 

That said, in the sim we only deal with nominal values, and here all we have are the quoted spec sheets. So that power it is. Regarding top speed, it depends on the prop used. The over compressed engine is not always faster, but as the overcompressed engines got some 15% added power (basically what you get form the upped compression ratio) that should make itself felt, especially at altitude.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stab/JG1_Klaiber
On 9/28/2021 at 1:33 PM, SCG_Faerber said:

The flying circus roadmap is an initiative by the Flying Circus community to organize and streamline the bugs reported and overall misunderstandings about the game and present them to the developers and players alike for a better comprehension of the current status of the product, while avoiding toxic undertones and hostility in the Flying Circus forums.

 

Thanks for this Faerber!  It's much appreciated.

 

Edited by Stab/JG1_Klaiber
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_Faerber
6 hours ago, Stab/JG1_Klaiber said:

 

Thanks for this Faerber!  It's much appreciated.

 

If you guys from JG1 feel that there is something missing, provide me with data to back it up and it will be updated.

The post is cold for the moment while we wait for fixes or any acknowledgements of issues. The community is welcome to point out, also, when the devs talk about any of theses items above and I fail to update the post.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner

After re-acquainting myself with it last night, I'd add that the 'vanilla' D7 could do with some kind of FM update - I found it to be generally worse than the Albatros in just about every way...! 

Personally I think the Alb / Pfalz are a little too good at sustaining turns and generating energy in a turning fight, and the D.VII 180hp isn't good enough at either...especially holding energy. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason_Williams changed the title to What we think the Flying Circus Roadmap should be
  • SCG_Faerber changed the title to The Flying Circus Features & Bugs tracker
Hellequin13

Need to add that the Pfalz D.IIIa FM is off, with it generating too much energy in a dive.

 

To demonstrate, turn off the engine and pull in to the vertical (prop hang) until your speed completely drops off, let the nose drop into the stall and start the clock as soon as your nose crosses the horizon. After three seconds, you'll be going ~140 kph: this defies physics.

 

Gravity will accelerate a body at 9.8 m/s, after three seconds the body should be going 29.4 m/s, or 105.84 kph. And this would be for a body with no drag to slow down the acceleration. The ability for the Pfalz to gain an additional 30+ kph above the maximum theoretical limit is likely why it is so good at generating excess energy.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PaulTheSalty
40 minutes ago, Hellequin13 said:

 

To demonstrate, turn off the engine and pull in to the vertical (prop hang) until your speed completely drops off, let the nose drop into the stall and start the clock as soon as your nose crosses the horizon. After three seconds, you'll be going ~140 kph: this defies physics.

 

Gravity will accelerate a body at 9.8 m/s, after three seconds the body should be going 29.4 m/s, or 105.84 kph. And this would be for a body with no drag to slow down the acceleration. The ability for the Pfalz to gain an additional 30+ kph above the maximum theoretical limit is likely why it is so good at generating excess energy.

Has this test been done with all the machines? Could be a good bit of data to help get all FM in proper order. Maybe make a video of each aircraft performing the rest under same conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hellequin13

So far I have only tested the Pfalz, as it is the only plane to exhibit such rapid energy gain after a stall. Other planes may be off as well, so some more testing may be in order. Unfortunately, without full drag coefficients, this test can only show those planes that are in in excess of the gravitational limit, and not in excess of (or not reaching) their physical limits. I suspect the Pfalz is the only one that exhibits this degree of error.

 

I discovered the discrepancy completely by chance, having lost a prop to a camel wing. While floating down, I started a series of dive/stalls, and noticed how quickly the speed picked up. I've since run multiple tests, starting at fully loaded, down to empty (with minimal fuel). Every test was started at 1000 meters over Arras. I would let the prop slow to a stop and then dive down to gain enough energy to go vertical. Stall, and start watching the anemometer. It may be down to the meter catching up to the air speed, but the majority of the indicated gain is within the first two seconds, tapering off as the nose begins to rise again. The range of speeds ran from 120 to 150 kph, with approaching 140 being the most common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
4 hours ago, Hellequin13 said:

Need to add that the Pfalz D.IIIa FM is off, with it generating too much energy in a dive.

 

To demonstrate, turn off the engine and pull in to the vertical (prop hang) until your speed completely drops off, let the nose drop into the stall and start the clock as soon as your nose crosses the horizon. After three seconds, you'll be going ~140 kph: this defies physics.

 

Gravity will accelerate a body at 9.8 m/s, after three seconds the body should be going 29.4 m/s, or 105.84 kph. And this would be for a body with no drag to slow down the acceleration. The ability for the Pfalz to gain an additional 30+ kph above the maximum theoretical limit is likely why it is so good at generating excess energy.

 

When there is a claim of a bug report relating to a basic physics calculation, there are three (non- exclusive) possibilities:

 

1) The claim misunderstands the physics

2) There is a measurement error in the tests

3) There is a mistake in the game's physics calculations or input assumptions.

 

Acceleration is not measured in m/s but in m/s^2, but leaving that aside, an overly simplistic view of what is actually happening combined with the real difficulties of measuring all the relevant variables  in such an event accurately, make some combination of (1) and (2) much more likely here than (3).

 

The difference between 106 and 140 kph can be accounted for by a measurement error in time of just under a second, or a 34 kph measurement error in vertical speed, or a combination of both.  

 

The test and calculation as described would only indicate a problem if both vertical and horizontal speed was exactly zero when the clock is started. There is no reason to assume that this condition would be met "when the nose crosses the horizon": indeed as described it is very likely that the plane is already descending when this happens.  The descent must also be exactly vertical otherwise the plane's speed indicator is measuring the hypotenuse, not the vertical descent.  If you are not fully tucked to get zero lift, the descent will not be vertical. 

 

Put it another way: you might be right, we all know that errors have been made in the game, but you need tracks with visible HUD to prove this.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hellequin13

On point 1: do you see anything to indicate that my understanding of the physics is faulty? I studied astrophysics, and gravitational acceleration is a pretty fundamental concept, so not sure there is a problem here.

 

Point 2: there is plenty of room for measurement error, thus my dataset spread over 30 kph. There is no conceivable way, in game, to guarantee zero velocity. If I could drop the Pfalz into the game, nose low and no power,  I could get more accurate readings. But, to the best of my knowledge, this is not possible.

 

The point of using the nose crossing as the reference point is because prior to this, the plane is in an uncontrolled ballistic trajectory, at the top of the parabola, crossing the threshold of deceleration/acceleration with an extreme AoA, and therefore extremely draggy.

 

The Pfalz has a very gentle stall, with the nose dropping more or less straight down as forward (upward) motion ceases. The plane does not fall backwards, but instead, falls flat as the nose rotates. Acceleration prior to nose crossing should be no where near 9.8m/s, with a near negligible affect on the final speed (considering the inaccuracies inherent in my testing methodology).

 

Regardless of the inaccuracies, for the Pfalz to go from near zero to near 140 kph in 3 (or 4) seconds is still highly improbable. 140 kph is the result of 4 seconds free fall in a vacuum (no drag). The Pfalz may be slippery (in comparison), but it is not a zero drag aircraft.

 

I'm not sure what is wrong here, but my suspicion is that parasitic drag is not being calculated properly while the plane is ballistic, allowing for greater initial acceleration than should be possible. (Might also be why it has such a gentle stall).

 

Yes, a frame by frame analysis would be the best way to plot the acceleration curve, and see where the problem starts. But I am not in possession of video editing software to allow for this. Nor am I trying to problem solve for the devs, merely pointing out that there is a reproducible anomaly, much like the high G limits of the Pfalz, that should be looked into.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

On 1) only that you used m/s for acceleration, rather than m/s^2, but I accept this as a minor oversight/typo. We all do this from time to time. I am not disputing your maths, or your motivations, I am sceptical about how you can be so sure about the accuracy of your measurements.


I tried to reproduce this myself, and there is no way I could tell exactly the vertical and horizontal speed and time how long it took to reach 140 kph just from looking at the screen.  

 

I am sceptical about claims of FM/DM faults since such a large proportion - although not all -  turn out to be unfounded. No doubt the developers feel much the same way. If you want them to take a look at this, your written claims will simply not be enough. I can pretty much guarantee you that no-one on the development team is going to read your post and rush off to check the FM. That is just he way things work here with an over-extended development team.

 

Post some tracks. Other people have video editing software, including the developers. If the phenomenon is reproducible, all you have to do is press the record button and we - and they - all have the chance to see the evidence and less excuse to ignore the issue if you are right. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US28_Baer

You just need to fly the pd3 and Alb to know they exist in a different reality and have done since RoF.  

But yeah, recording tracks of the same tests with tacview on,   should enable you to identify a repeatable point for measurement start. 

 

Side note.  Larner and I have been doing sustained and instant turn tests using tacview. Guess which 2 planes are the most extra-ordinary.

Edited by US28_Baer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tacview was going to be my suggestion. It uses the position data from the recorded track to calculate other useful data, such as G's, altitude, energy, distance between two objects, etc. It is not perfect, since the tracks record data at a slower rate than the game's simulation runs at (thus the calculated data is close but not a perfect match to what the game sees), but its a good starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...